The Fair Elections Act aims to enshrine in law a permanent advisory body for Elections Canada, but an advisory body that one professor is warning will likely work in shadows and “behind closed doors.”

Carleton University’s Jennifer Robson points to a provision in C-23 that would entrench the existing Advisory Committee of Political Parties, struck in 1998, in law. It would meet at least once a year and consist of the chief electoral officer and two representatives of each registered party.

The committee, under the bill, would be required to review and comment on interpretation notes and written opinions on the Canada Elections Act from the chief electoral officer before those opinions could be posted on the Elections Canada website.

Although the ACPP’s advice wouldn’t be binding on the chief electoral officer, Robson says there’s a concerning lack of transparency about the group.

The existing Advisory Committee of Political Parties, established in 1998, consults on legislative changes, deals with administrative issues and works, as far as Robson knows, on a voluntary basis and according to Elections Canada does not include any elected MPs. Putting such a body into the new legislation gives it “permanence and clout,” Robson said.

Robson appeared at the NDP’s town hall on the Fair Elections Act when the tour rolled through Ottawa, and told the crowd gathered at the Lord Elgin Hotel that this aspect of the bill “hasn’t received an awful lot of attention, and I really think it should.”

“They’re going to meet annually, they’re going to have an opportunity to provide their input to the chief electoral officer, they’re going to have the chance to review the guidance that Elections Canada agency might put out in advance,” she said.

“Except here’s the thing, there is no mechanism in the legislation, no requirement to make any of the parties’ views public. This debate on C-23 is happening right now. We know where the parties stand. If this bill goes through, all of this goes into a big black box, and it goes behind closed doors.”

Essentially, anything parties say about what they want from Elections Canada will remain a private matter — and the public won’t have access to any of the details, unless parties want those details shared.

“Worse,” Robson later noted to iPolitics, “other sections of the bill suggest that Elections Canada wouldn’t be permitted to communicate with the public about this committee” for the same reason it wouldn’t be able to communicate about things like civic literacy and voter engagement.

Elections Canada itself isn’t quite happy with the rules in C-23 around the new advisory committee, but for a different reason — the agency’s concerns come from the quick turn around that the chief electoral officer would have, to issue guidelines and interpretation notes.

The ACPP, said Diane Benson of EC media relations, has been around for a long time and is about the flow of information from parties to Elections Canada and back. Who sits at the table often changes depending on who is available at the time, she said, and the committee is included as part of Elections Canada’s performance and statutory reports.

Robson pointed out, though, that other officers of Parliament have advisory committees, such as the Office of the Auditor General, with information on the body’s membership and its annual reports available online. Another key difference, she said, “is that the OAG advisory body doesn’t include representatives of federal bodies subject to OAG audit.”

“All the more reason to make an ACPP transparent.”

When asked whether the Minister of Democratic Reform would be open to making amendments around this committee, or in adding more clarity or transparency to its mandate, Pierre Poilievre’s office noted the committee’s origins and what it’s meant to do.

“The Fair Elections Act will give the committee statutory legitimacy and the mandate to provide non-binding advice and opinions on the administration and management of electoral laws to the chief electoral officer. Specifically, the CEO will be required to consult the committee on guidelines, interpretations and advance rulings,” wrote Cheryl Stone, Poilievre’s director of policy, in an email.

“The Government is always open to hearing suggestions on how to take the Fair Elections Act from an A- to an A+.”